EVENTS

Any Questions

I’m listening to the bit of Any Questions – starting 38 minutes in – where they talk about gender segregation. I’ve paused it after Amjad Bashir said his piece (he’s the first) because it’s so good. (It made me get something in my eye for a second.) First of all he just said No, and got applause. Then he said about growing up in Bradford (and he has the Yorkshire accent to prove it) and meeting everybody, from primary school on. Mixing. Meeting all kinds of people. And his children, and his grandchildren, they do the same. This is not Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to meet people.

Yes exactly. It’s not just the meddling with everyone’s rights. It’s the horrible narrow pinched impoverished way to live, and way to think about people, that they want to promote as pious and good. It is horrible. Bashir said his time at Bradford University was the best time in his life, meeting people – and you could hear it in his voice. The whole point of this vile segregation nonsense is not doing that, not expanding and broadening and becoming richer.

Down with it!

Having listened to the rest…

Yes Shami Chakrabarti was great – especially when she resisted Jonathan Dimbleby’s attempt to interrupt her by saying she’d talked less than any of the men and then pointing out that oh look we’re all minorities here but I’m still the only woman.

She said what I’ve been saying all along, if this were about segregating by race we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, and why is it so different when it comes to women? Women are the last apartheid, she said.

Thanks Bernard for telling us about it and how many minutes in it starts.

Comments

I had to listen, just for that ;-). Bashir’s accent is a *little* bit off, to my ears — there’s a hint of Pakistan in there. But mostly he sounds like my relatives, most of whom are from Leeds and area. (And I suppose, like my Bradfordian parents, but I never noticed their accents — they were just Mom and Dad. Funny thing, that.)

Bashir was very good – simple & heartfelt. Chakrabarti – why are we even talking about this?

I really wish some journalist would investigate how the UUK got themselves to the point of making themselves ridiculous. Corporate organisations make you celebrate diversity and be sensitive about other people’s religions – at least my organisation does- and perhaps they just went the further step.

Hate to self-publicize, but the follow-up programme “Any Answers?” has a brief comment of mine exposing a common misunderstanding about the odious document on gender segregation on UK campuses and criticizing Shami Chakrabarti for not taking UUK to task ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03lkmpw (24:10 into the broadcast).
For a longer comment, read on

What is wrong with “voluntary” gender segregation?
The recent debacle by Universities UK, who had to withdraw their odious document on gender segregation on British campuses, has highlighted a number of interesting issues on the relationship between universities and the public sphere. Before addressing the issue of “voluntary” gender segregation, a few comments on the governance of British Universities are in order.
British academics and especially University vice-chancellors have not covered themselves in glory during this incident. I have not seen a single public statement by any vice-chancellor denouncing the document, issued on their own behalf by UUK, as contrary to the ethos of British Universities. The opposition to gender segregation was not started by academics (Nick Cohen and Polly Toynbee having played a major role) and some lonely open letters to vice-chancellors asking them to take a stance received no replies and little support.
The way in which the UUK document was prepared gives an illuminating insight into the mind set of the new class of bureaucrats ruling British Universities, who manage to combine illiberal values with practical incompetence, free, as they are, from any form of effective monitoring and accountability.
Who could have predicted that a document mandating compulsory gender segregation on UK campuses would have generated widespread opposition? Not Nicola Dandridge who apparently did not submit the draft of her guidance document to UUK board members for prior approval. Who could have predicted that such inflammatory recommendation as compulsory gender segregation would require scrupulously careful legal advice? Not Nicola Dandridge who consulted a senior legal counsel (Fenella Morris QC, who must be busy clearing egg from her face) after the eruption of public outrage. Who, when consulting on a major policy document on freedom of speech, thought that it would not be appropriate to approach the leading human rights organization, namely Liberty (formerly the Council for Civil Liberties)? Nicola Dandridge, who, on the other hand, sought the opinions of the Church of England, of the Union of Jewish Students, of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, even of the obscure Lokahi Foundation. Not a mention either of the National Secular Society which, one might have thought, could have had something to contribute on freedom of, and from, religion.
Following such a humiliating defeat, that has resonated on a worldwide basis, the resignations of the CEO of UUK, Nicola Dandridge, should have been demanded as a matter of course.
In a sense Ms Dandridge should be thanked for her incompetence and lack of sensitivity because by recommending mandatory gender segregation she has managed to create a much wider front of opposition than would have been the case had she merely advocated “voluntary” gender apartheid.
So what is wrong with “voluntary” gender segregation? The debate on this matter in the last couple of weeks has, in my opinion, missed the main point at stake, in so far as it has centred on whether women who endorse gender segregation are truly free or whether they display “false consciousness”.
My contention is that gender equality in civil society is not optional, to be adhered to or not depending on one’s religious belief. Whereas the choice of following any one religion (with its own particular customs which may include gender segregation, special clothing requirements, dietary restrictions, etc.) is, obviously, a matter of personal choice and free from any state interference (in a secular state), dispensing with gender equality is not open to any individuals as citizens, i.e., as members of civil and political society. When attending an event organized on a non-religious basis, individuals cannot demand that their refusal to behave as citizens be respected by other citizens. I may want and indeed desire to be humiliated and treated as a sexual object in the confines of my private life, but this does not give me the right to be so treated in the public sphere. Gender equality is not a gift from god, indeed it is an ideal that had to be fought for against almost every religion. Gender equality is a constituent right of individuals as citizens, who may decide not to avail themselves of it in their private relationship but cannot be divested from in civil and political society.

Bashir is great. A clear, heartfelt statement.
“No. The answer is no. Absolutely not. . All through my life, and my children, my grand children are all mixing, all sexes, whether it’s primary schools, whether it’s secondary schools. whether it’s universities. There is no room. This is England This is the twenty first century. It’s not Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive, It’s not Saudi Arabia, where they are not allowed to have bank accounts. This is England. We should allow our youngsters to mix and decide their own future. This is the twenty first century. I am against this segregation..”

Which reminds me at the end of Brick Lane where the wife, brought over from a Bangladeshi village and living a closeted life goes skating.

“This is England. We can do what we like.”

That’s rather a rosy view of England as it has existed historically and exists now. But it’s a good idea to have of your country.